Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pozareport.si


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 15:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Pozareport.si

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable opinion website run by an amateur "investigative journalist". The article itself just includes a pozareport.si reports of affairs, mostly primary sources from pozareport.si itself, obvious promotional article, which looked like this before I cleaned it up, but the author of the article, which is obviously associated with the website, is constantly restoring it. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - this subject is a media outlet with national and international notability. Articles about it appear in national and international media. It published articles, which triggered resignations of four government ministers. If a media publishes an article, which triggers a resignation a few days later, it is notable. If it does in four times, it is more than notable. Moreover, based on the article in this media, the editor is being sued in court by the father of First Lady of the United States Melania Trump and the court process is ongoing. This media is very critical of the government and persons politically leaning towards government attempt to kill this Wikipedia page. User:Snowflake91 seems to be one of them. Snowflake91 claims that the editor is an "amateur journalist". The main editor was an editor-in-chief of daily Direkt, owned by daily Dnevnik, and before that a chief editor of Bulvar section in Slovenske novice, at that time the newspaper with the largest circulation in the country. He published a book Melania Trump: The Inside Story, depicting life of the First Lady of the United States when she still lived in Slovenia. Over the past 48 hours, User:Snowflake91 attempted to delete more than half of the page several times, calling it crap, stupid, useless, unneeded, promotion, nonsense, yellow journalism, "no value of any kind", etc. I asked User:Snowflake91 to take his frustrations to the talk page and he keeps deleting sections of the page. Please someone warn him. nomos2019  (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That all makes Bojan Požar a notable person, but not his blog, which is a well-known in Slovenia for writting sensationalistic dubious news for clicks. Snowflake91  (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Two users have been in a continuous dispute over the past few days. It seems that Snowflake91 made intense editing today. Thank you for this edit. The page looks good now. It also shows notability. I googled the subject and both the subject (the website) and the editor are notable enough. Snowflake91, you are correct, the editor is notable enough to have own site on Wikipedia. Until there is no site about him, a paragraph about him can be merged into the Pozareport.si site. Topjur02 (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable news site. Passes WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Very weak keep I agree that there's some rather weak and coatrack-y claims to notability here - for one, attempted inherited notability from the founder (it don't work that way); for another, for most of the claimed whistleblower/investigative pieces, there's no actual proof that the reporting influenced the eventual outcome, and just reporting on something that's a big deal does not make the reporter notable (otherwise every sensationalist blog would pass muster). However, the court cases got some indisputable press. If it could be shown that the site's reporting has actually been independently acknowledged as driving the public/political outcome, then this would do - otherwise it seems very borderline. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - there is a lot of notability in local language but not much in English. Nationally it is a very notable media outlet but not internationally. Clearly passes WP:GNG. AfD may be closed. Easterneurope2019 (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.